Meta

LA Now got these thoughts from Jackie Lacey on Wednesday morning, once her victory was confirmed.

“The voters are saying the D.A.’s office is not for sale, it’s not like any other political office,” said Lacey, who took 32% of the votes and in November’s runoff will face fellow prosecutor Alan Jackson, who won nearly 24% of the votes. The two candidates led the votes in a surprising upset over L.A. City Atty. Carmen Trutanich, who raised $1.5 million for the race and secured high-profile endorsements.

“It’s a great country when the person who raises the most money doesn’t win,” she said.

Lacey said she was concerned and intimidated “for a minute” at Trutanich’s endorsements, particularly when Gov. Jerry Brown backed the city attorney. “That was an interesting decision,” she said. She said her campaign then chose to move forward and put “one foot in front of the other.”

She said she would be scrambling to get endorsements from Brown, Sheriff Lee Baca and labor.

“We are making calls as we speak,” she said. “Given what I’ve read about the sheriff’s plans in the jails, and what the governor intends to do, we need to work as a team and we need to start today.”

Had she faced Trutanich in the runoff, Lacey said the campaign could have taken a turn for the nasty and that there could have been “blood on the walls…..”

“I believe that the next D.A., who I believe will be myself, needs to be courageous and look at repositioning the justice system. There’s a better way to keep the community safe. We need to get people into rehab and mental health programs, and solve this problem forever, rather than have them going in and out of jail.”

AND BACK AT THE TRUTANICH CAMP ON TUESDAY NIGHT

Frank Stoltze of KPCC was at Trutanich’s would be victory party on Tuesday night and posted a…very intriguing story about everyone’s reactions after it became clear that Jackie Lacey had zoomed past Trutanich in votes, and worse, he wouldn’t be in the runoff at all.

Here’s a clip:

….By 1 a.m., the candidate everyone thought was unbeatable — the one who’d outspent his opponents three to one – was beginning to explain his loss.

Trutanich complained of attacks by his opponents that distorted his record. His political consultant John Shallman echoed the sentiment.

“They had a pretty nice trap set when Trutanich got in the race,” Shallman said.

But many would argue that the trap was set by Trutanich himself when he pledged three years ago to serve out his term as city attorney before running for another office. Opponents called him a liar, and the campaign offered varying explanations for the switch. Trutanich called the pledge a “gimmick.” Shallman labeled it “silly and political.”

Some voters seemed unconvinced.

Trutanich also blamed the media, especially talk radio hosts who he said regularly attacked him. Shallman said he counted 42 negative news articles. He defended Trutanich’s decision to limit media interviews and debate appearances.

“I don’t know that there’s anything he could have done with the tidal wave of negativity,” Shallman said.

The LA Weekly’s Gene Maddeus was also at the non-victory party and had these nuggets.

Speaking to a dwindling group of supporters after 1 a.m., Trutanich did not concede, but blamed the media for a “major league onslaught” against his candidacy.

“….”I don’t know what we did wrong in terms of running the city of L.A.,” Trutanich told the crowd. “There’s absolutely no corruption in the city of Los Angeles, as far as the city attorney’s office goes. They hit me on street artists. I still think of it as graffiti. Obviously the marijuana crowd came out… We’ve done everything properly. There’s no shame in what we’ve done. Negative campaigns work.”

So-o-o-ooo….let me get this straight: Carmen Trutanich lost this election because of the mean media, the tagger backlash, and the weed-lovers political machine.

Trutanich told the LA Times that he will seek a second term as City Attorney. Assemblyman Mike Fuerer and others plan to run for the office as well. Feurer has already raised $345,000 toward the election, which will take place in November.

7 Responses

Baca’s endorsement will be the kiss of death! She really needs to rethink this! If I was advising Jackson I would come out and refuse any endorsement of the sheriff and then promise to investigate Baca and the whole regime. I bet Jackson would win. Perhaps Lacy is not the one for DA!

Lacey should not be popping champagne quite yet. Almost overlooked in the high fiving is the fact that both she AND Jackson have to convince the majority of voters they are up for the job. If Lacey wants to rush over to Sheriff Moonbeam, kiss his tainted ring and get an endorsement, think again. The proliferation of corruption at the LASD occurred under Baca’s watch, while Cooley looked carefully the other way.

The voting public wants a DA who holds elected officials, REGARDLESS of who they are, accountable to the rule of law. Lacey’s record is that of being Cooley’s understudy, which means she represents the status quo – NOT what is needed at this point in time!

A prime example of Lacey’s service to the status quo was when she was caught lying under oath regarding retaliation for union activity. I don’t buy the “blood sugar” defense.
There is a lot of ugly things that need to be investigated, grand juries empaneled, but Lacey will keep them mothballed just like Cooley did. No thanks.

Jackson, keep up the good work and run a good campaign. We are far past the time where accidents of birth are qualifications for office.

Lacey better think long and hard about getting into bed with Baca. He will use her like a Kleenex if she allows it. Getting an endorsement from Baca is like getting an endorsement from Barbara Striesand.

Trutanich was totally unacceptable to the voters, obviously! That leaves Lacy or Jackson. I won’t VOTE for anyone that receives or seeks an endorsement from Baca! We demand a DA that going to help clean up the mess! Lacy and Jackson got a long hill to climb!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Speaking personally, I don’t think either candidate should seek the endorsement of either the Sheriff or the Chief of Police. In my opinion, it’s a deeply problematic conflict of interest.

We hope to interview both candidates before the runoff. And the comments from this thread have been very useful in stimulating our thinking about topic areas we need to explore with our questions

C.

Leave a Comment

Name:

Mail (will not be published):

Website:

Comment:

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.